What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4501220 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $242.86 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4501220?

Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,902.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4501220?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4501220?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9665156-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4501220 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $242.86 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4501220?

Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,902.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4501220?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4501220?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9665156-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

23 Scotia Glen Street, Putaruru 3411 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4501220 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

23 Scotia Glen Street, Putaruru 3411 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4501220 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4501220 — net $242.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$80.00		Cleaning
Rent arrears to 23.1.23	$1,902.86		Rent arrears to 23.1.23
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge the bond		$300.00	Failure to lodge the bond
Total award	$1,982.86	$300.00
Net award	$242.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$242.86

Claims and awards for application 4501220 — net $242.86 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $80.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rent arrears to 23.1.23

Amount: $1,902.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 23.1.23

Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge the bond

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to lodge the bond

Total award

Landlord $1,982.86 · Tenant $300.00

Net award

Landlord $242.86

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $242.86

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Exemplary damages Rent arrears

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $242.86 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant notified the Tribunal after the hearing had started that she would be 20 minutes late. The landlords claim had been heard, and the tenant was given to opportunity to respond upon arrival.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond, compensation and exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 23 January 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The rent arrears stem from early in the tenancy before the tenant organised for WINZ to commence payments. The tenant agreed with the amount outstanding.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean. The shower and bathroom required cleaning. The claim for cleaning was higher but there was not enough evidence provided to support the amount claimed.

Did the landlord lodge the bond?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said that she received the bond but due to the tenant not paying rent at the start of the tenancy she struggled to make mortgage payments and used the bond money to cover the rent arrears. The landlord then saved up the bond amount and lodged the bond. This was just before the tenancy ended.
The landlord agreed that she had done this, and I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord intentionally failed to lodge the bond. This money is not the landlords but the tenants to be held at the bond centre as a surety for end of tenancy claims. There is no capacity to use it to offset debts of the tenant during the tenancy.
The correct procedure is to make an application to the Tenancy Tribunal for determination. I find it just to award $300.00 for breach of section 19(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant sought compensation for not having her bond at the end of the tenancy to use for her next rental agreement. The bond is kept at the bond centre once an application is made to the Tribunal until an order is issued determining the apportionment of costs. No compensation is awarded.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to; a) Permanently repair the kitchen ceiling b) Rid the premises of rats, mice, slugs, and snails c) Fix the gap under the kitchen cabinets d) Attend to light fittings that kept blowing e) Find the source of the large electricity bills the tenant received, f)Fix the lifted concrete hazard on the path and g) Fix the stove top elements.
It is the party bringing the claims that has the burden to prove them. The Tenancy Tribunal has the civil standard of proof which is on the balance of probabilities. Another way of saying this is, that is it more likely than not that the events occurred.
The tenant experienced a flood in the kitchen and part of the lounge after a heavy rain event on 25 August 2023. She contacted the landlord, and the landlord had the leak remedied the next day by cleaning out the collector at the top of the downpipe, which had been blocked.
As part of the correspondence the landlord said that she would like to make a permanent solution which would require removing an internal wall to access internal guttering.
The tenant confirmed that after the collector was removed there were no more leaks, but sought the permanent fix. I find that this was not required as the landlord attended and fixed the leak.
The tenant found evidence of rats, mice, slugs, and snails at the premises. The landlord said these occurred during the tenancy and were not there at the start.
The landlord sourced and provided the tenant with rat bait and less toxic bait and salt which the tenant used but said did not work. There was no evidence provided that the tenant told the landlord that she kept having these issues after the landlord had responded.
The tenant believed that the gap between the toe kick and the floor in the kitchen was where the pests were coming in, but could not show where there was a gap to the outside. The landlord confirmed that the kitchen cabinets were attached to the floor and the only hole in it was where the waste pipe went.
The tenant had trouble with light bulbs blowing in the hallway and lounge. The landlord sent an electrician around to check the lights and was invoiced for changing 3 lightbulbs. A copy of an email from the electrician, [Redacted] confirmed on 2 December 2022 that they found nothing wrong with the existing batten holders.
The tenant said that she was told they needed permission to check the house wiring because that was the problem. This could not be confirmed with evidence.
The tenant said that she had large power bills and believed that she may have been paying for her neighbour’s hot water. The landlord confirmed that the tenant had an independent power metre and separate hot water cylinder.
The landlord said she investigated with the power company and an electrician but could not find any reason for the high bills. No other evidence was provided.
The path to the premises has cracked and lifted and the tenant found this to be a hazard.
The landlord engaged a handy man, after some struggle to find one, who removed the concrete and boxed it up but got no further.
The tenant contacted the landlord about the oven after it stopped working. An electrician was sent, and the landlord believed that this repair was complete as she did not hear back from the tenant that one element did not work again.
The legal requirement for a landlord to maintain a premises is linked to the tenant’s requirement to inform the landlord, as soon as possible, of any damages or need for repairs. See section 40 (d) RTA.
In considering the claims by the tenant under section 45 RTA, I find that only the landlord failed to repair the concrete path, and the landlord knew about this. All the other concerns raised by the tenant were attended to in a timely manner and there was no evidence produced that the landlord had otherwise failed to repair and maintain the premises.
With respect to the concrete path, I find that the landlord committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I must consider if the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally. The landlord provided copies of communications where she tried to find someone to fix the concrete. The repair began but was not completed. She purchased outside lights to install for this area as there had been a break in, but the Police had installed some already. I do not find that the landlord intentionally committed this unlawful act and decline to award exemplary damages.

Did the Landlord breach the healthy homes standards?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
In this case I have determined that the photos of the kitchen cabinetry showed that the gap between the toe kick and the floor, in some places, was unreasonable. However, it was not established that the area under the kitchen cabinets led to any holes to outside or source of any draughts. The tenant said the premises were cold apart from where the fireplace was.
The tenant said the windows also let air in and informed the landlord of this on July 12, 2023.The landlord purchased sealing tape and delivered it to the tenant on 31 July 2023. Due to a miscommunication the tenant was not home at the time, so the landlord left it behind. The tenant said that the handyman next door installed it, but it made little difference. This was not communicated to the landlord. The landlord asked for clarification from the tenant of her concerns but did not receive a reply.
The tenant said she gave up as she did not think the landlord was going to attend to anything and gave her notice to end the tenancy.
I do not find that the landlord committed an unlawful act. This claim is dismissed.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Both parties requested suppression. Both have succeeded in some of their claims. I do not consider that the publication of this order is in the public interest and name suppression for both parties is awarded.
The filing fees are not refunded as both parties were somewhat successful with their claims.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4501220 — net $242.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$80.00		Cleaning
Rent arrears to 23.1.23	$1,902.86		Rent arrears to 23.1.23
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge the bond		$300.00	Failure to lodge the bond
Total award	$1,982.86	$300.00
Net award	$242.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$242.86

Claims and awards for application 4501220 — net $242.86 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $80.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rent arrears to 23.1.23

Amount: $1,902.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 23.1.23

Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge the bond

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to lodge the bond

Total award

Landlord $1,982.86 · Tenant $300.00

Net award

Landlord $242.86

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $242.86

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Exemplary damages Rent arrears

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $242.86 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant notified the Tribunal after the hearing had started that she would be 20 minutes late. The landlords claim had been heard, and the tenant was given to opportunity to respond upon arrival.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond, compensation and exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 23 January 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The rent arrears stem from early in the tenancy before the tenant organised for WINZ to commence payments. The tenant agreed with the amount outstanding.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean. The shower and bathroom required cleaning. The claim for cleaning was higher but there was not enough evidence provided to support the amount claimed.

Did the landlord lodge the bond?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said that she received the bond but due to the tenant not paying rent at the start of the tenancy she struggled to make mortgage payments and used the bond money to cover the rent arrears. The landlord then saved up the bond amount and lodged the bond. This was just before the tenancy ended.
The landlord agreed that she had done this, and I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord intentionally failed to lodge the bond. This money is not the landlords but the tenants to be held at the bond centre as a surety for end of tenancy claims. There is no capacity to use it to offset debts of the tenant during the tenancy.
The correct procedure is to make an application to the Tenancy Tribunal for determination. I find it just to award $300.00 for breach of section 19(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant sought compensation for not having her bond at the end of the tenancy to use for her next rental agreement. The bond is kept at the bond centre once an application is made to the Tribunal until an order is issued determining the apportionment of costs. No compensation is awarded.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to; a) Permanently repair the kitchen ceiling b) Rid the premises of rats, mice, slugs, and snails c) Fix the gap under the kitchen cabinets d) Attend to light fittings that kept blowing e) Find the source of the large electricity bills the tenant received, f)Fix the lifted concrete hazard on the path and g) Fix the stove top elements.
It is the party bringing the claims that has the burden to prove them. The Tenancy Tribunal has the civil standard of proof which is on the balance of probabilities. Another way of saying this is, that is it more likely than not that the events occurred.
The tenant experienced a flood in the kitchen and part of the lounge after a heavy rain event on 25 August 2023. She contacted the landlord, and the landlord had the leak remedied the next day by cleaning out the collector at the top of the downpipe, which had been blocked.
As part of the correspondence the landlord said that she would like to make a permanent solution which would require removing an internal wall to access internal guttering.
The tenant confirmed that after the collector was removed there were no more leaks, but sought the permanent fix. I find that this was not required as the landlord attended and fixed the leak.
The tenant found evidence of rats, mice, slugs, and snails at the premises. The landlord said these occurred during the tenancy and were not there at the start.
The landlord sourced and provided the tenant with rat bait and less toxic bait and salt which the tenant used but said did not work. There was no evidence provided that the tenant told the landlord that she kept having these issues after the landlord had responded.
The tenant believed that the gap between the toe kick and the floor in the kitchen was where the pests were coming in, but could not show where there was a gap to the outside. The landlord confirmed that the kitchen cabinets were attached to the floor and the only hole in it was where the waste pipe went.
The tenant had trouble with light bulbs blowing in the hallway and lounge. The landlord sent an electrician around to check the lights and was invoiced for changing 3 lightbulbs. A copy of an email from the electrician, [Redacted] confirmed on 2 December 2022 that they found nothing wrong with the existing batten holders.
The tenant said that she was told they needed permission to check the house wiring because that was the problem. This could not be confirmed with evidence.
The tenant said that she had large power bills and believed that she may have been paying for her neighbour’s hot water. The landlord confirmed that the tenant had an independent power metre and separate hot water cylinder.
The landlord said she investigated with the power company and an electrician but could not find any reason for the high bills. No other evidence was provided.
The path to the premises has cracked and lifted and the tenant found this to be a hazard.
The landlord engaged a handy man, after some struggle to find one, who removed the concrete and boxed it up but got no further.
The tenant contacted the landlord about the oven after it stopped working. An electrician was sent, and the landlord believed that this repair was complete as she did not hear back from the tenant that one element did not work again.
The legal requirement for a landlord to maintain a premises is linked to the tenant’s requirement to inform the landlord, as soon as possible, of any damages or need for repairs. See section 40 (d) RTA.
In considering the claims by the tenant under section 45 RTA, I find that only the landlord failed to repair the concrete path, and the landlord knew about this. All the other concerns raised by the tenant were attended to in a timely manner and there was no evidence produced that the landlord had otherwise failed to repair and maintain the premises.
With respect to the concrete path, I find that the landlord committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I must consider if the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally. The landlord provided copies of communications where she tried to find someone to fix the concrete. The repair began but was not completed. She purchased outside lights to install for this area as there had been a break in, but the Police had installed some already. I do not find that the landlord intentionally committed this unlawful act and decline to award exemplary damages.

Did the Landlord breach the healthy homes standards?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
In this case I have determined that the photos of the kitchen cabinetry showed that the gap between the toe kick and the floor, in some places, was unreasonable. However, it was not established that the area under the kitchen cabinets led to any holes to outside or source of any draughts. The tenant said the premises were cold apart from where the fireplace was.
The tenant said the windows also let air in and informed the landlord of this on July 12, 2023.The landlord purchased sealing tape and delivered it to the tenant on 31 July 2023. Due to a miscommunication the tenant was not home at the time, so the landlord left it behind. The tenant said that the handyman next door installed it, but it made little difference. This was not communicated to the landlord. The landlord asked for clarification from the tenant of her concerns but did not receive a reply.
The tenant said she gave up as she did not think the landlord was going to attend to anything and gave her notice to end the tenancy.
I do not find that the landlord committed an unlawful act. This claim is dismissed.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Both parties requested suppression. Both have succeeded in some of their claims. I do not consider that the publication of this order is in the public interest and name suppression for both parties is awarded.
The filing fees are not refunded as both parties were somewhat successful with their claims.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4501220 — Rent arrears at 23 Scotia Glen Street, Putaruru 3411

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4501220 — Rent arrears at 23 Scotia Glen Street, Putaruru 3411

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Did the landlord lodge the bond?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Did the Landlord breach the healthy homes standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Did the landlord lodge the bond?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Did the Landlord breach the healthy homes standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions